Post by hydraheadhunter on Feb 14, 2021 7:52:38 GMT
This is my third typing this after closing the tab accidentally, and I refuse on principle to write this in a word doc. I'll just make the essay shorter every time until I manage it.
Anyway, let's discuss playability. The playableness of a card is a measure of how much players tend to enjoy playing with, or against, a card. Although a correlation can be drawn, it is distinct from power, as cards that are too powerful make the game less enjoyable, and cards that are too weak (to be viable in competative play) can still be a a lot of fun in casual play.
I propose first, a five point model for scoring how likely a card is to be playable.
• Grockability: The easier a card is to understand, the more likely it'll be playable.
• Versatility: The more decks a card fits in and the more niches in that deck that a card fits (without sacrificing grockability), the more likely it'll be playable.
• Reliability: The more often you'd be happy to top deck the card because it's exactly what you need in the situation, the more likely it'll be playable.
• Uniqueness: The fewer functional reprints (or near functional) of a card there are, the more likely it'll be playable.
• Entertainment: The more players who find a card funny, whimsical, adorable, meme-worthy, flavorful, etc, the more likely it'll be playable.
You'll notice that follow these guidelines doesn't guarentee a playable card: I just posit that doing so'll make it more likely to produce one. That's ultimately playability is a subjective value judgement made on a player by player basis, and will vary wildly between formats as well. It's like Potter Stewart once said about something else entirely, "I shall not today attempt further to define [it], and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it."
Anyway, let's discuss playability. The playableness of a card is a measure of how much players tend to enjoy playing with, or against, a card. Although a correlation can be drawn, it is distinct from power, as cards that are too powerful make the game less enjoyable, and cards that are too weak (to be viable in competative play) can still be a a lot of fun in casual play.
I propose first, a five point model for scoring how likely a card is to be playable.
• Grockability: The easier a card is to understand, the more likely it'll be playable.
• Versatility: The more decks a card fits in and the more niches in that deck that a card fits (without sacrificing grockability), the more likely it'll be playable.
• Reliability: The more often you'd be happy to top deck the card because it's exactly what you need in the situation, the more likely it'll be playable.
• Uniqueness: The fewer functional reprints (or near functional) of a card there are, the more likely it'll be playable.
• Entertainment: The more players who find a card funny, whimsical, adorable, meme-worthy, flavorful, etc, the more likely it'll be playable.
You'll notice that follow these guidelines doesn't guarentee a playable card: I just posit that doing so'll make it more likely to produce one. That's ultimately playability is a subjective value judgement made on a player by player basis, and will vary wildly between formats as well. It's like Potter Stewart once said about something else entirely, "I shall not today attempt further to define [it], and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it."
